tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 03 07:57:33 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
According to David Trimboli:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
>
>
> >> The {-'e'} disambiguator is always optional. It is a convenience, not a
> >> requirement, and if it ceases to be convenient, don't try to use it.
> >
> >I believe that it is a bit more than optional. For clarity's
> >sake, it is generally necessary, exept when it adds a poetic
> >sense to leave the head noun somewhat vague, as is the case for
> >{Hovmey ghajbe'bogh ram rur peghmey ghajbe'bogh jaj}.
>
> Okrand has given us unmarked relative clauses a number of times, and marked
> clauses nearly as often. Your suggestion that leaving it unmarked is for
> poetic use is not supported by canon. You made that up. Some of the
> unmarked sentences are not poetic, and some of the marked ones are.
>
> UNMARKED:
> Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj (PK)
I believe this is poetic.
> cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD (SkyBox S25)
Here, the head noun doesn't matter. {'oDwI'} and {janluq pIqarD
HoD} are the same entity. "John Luc Pickard, who has acted as
arbitrator, succeeds," is exactly the same meaning as, "The
arbitrator who was enacted by John Luc Pickard succeeds."
> 'ang'eghQo' quv Hutlhbogh jagh neH ghobtaHvIS ghaH (TKW 61)
This is also rather poetic, since while it is obvious from
context that the common meaning is, "An enemy who lacks honor
refuses to show himself...", it is also a somewhat poetic
secondary meaning that honor which is lacked by an enemy
refuses to show itself...
> nuHmey nISbe'bogh So'wI' jomlu'pu' (SkyBox S33)
This is another one that is likely intentionally vague. We
don't necessarily know if they installed a cloaking device
which does not interfere with the weapons or weapons which are
not hindered by a cloaking device. All we know is that this
combination of cloaking device and weapons can fire while
cloaked.
> Hom Hutlhbogh gham (KGT 27)
Lacking context or my KGT at the moment, I can't comment.
> Hoch jaghpu'Daj HoHbogh SuvwI' yIvup (KGT 107)
I would have marked this one. I could see that one might also
pity all the enemies killed by the soldier as well. Mostly the
whole situation deserves pity. Everyone involved deserves pity.
> MARKED:
> qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'
Clearly, one would not be talking about "someone who can't
forget Kahless". The {-'e'} wasn't NEEDED, if it was optional.
> Ha'quj'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv
> butlh ghajbogh nuv'e' yIHo'
I could have seen this one without the marker, given that the
{butlh} itself and what it symbolizes, deserves admiration, but
this statement clearly tells us to admire the person.
> nobmey qembogh yIrIDnganpu''e' yIvoqQo'
> Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'
These simply make sense.
> I think you have embraced the {-'e'} disambiguator a little too closely. It
> is used for additional clarity. Adding pronouns is also used for additional
> clarity. So is using a noun redundantly. These are not *required*. {-'e'}
> is optional.
Well, they are often required if you want clarity.
> >> Until a Klingon comes and tells us (or Okrand) that {-Daq} does not
> belong
> >> in this position, I do not see any revolution coming.
> >
> >Until a Klingon comes and tells us (or Okrand) that {-Daq} does
> >belong in this position, I don't see this kind of construction
> >occuring much with either of our interpretations. It is
> >DEFINITELY not as simple as you seek to paint it. Okrand has NOT
> >condoned your interpretation any more than mine.
>
> But he has. {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoHpu' neH} shows the head noun as the
> subject of the relative clause and as the locative of the main sentence, and
> {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He} shows the head noun as the
> object of the relative clause and as the locative of the main sentence (or
> rather, of the purpose clause). Both are predicted exactly according to my
> model. Yours would have the questionable ??Sepmey Sovbe'lu'boghDaq
> lenglu'meH?? or ??Sepmey'e' Sovbe'bogh vay'Daq lenglu'meH??, but they do not
> appear. My approach is supported by canon. Yours is not.
Point made. I concede. No further argument. I think we suffer a
loss for this.
> Are these sentences ambiguous? They can be. Can they be worded better?
> Most of the time I'm sure they can. That does not make them wrong.
> Sometimes they're not ambiguous. Sometimes context will help resolve the
> ambiguity, as it does in so many other cases. I'm not saying that your idea
> cannot be right (though that's what you seem to be saying to me),
No. I've been rather fiercely saying that the language would be
better if you WERE wrong. I've been saying that we can't tell
what is right. Your second example shows you are right. Bummer.
I doubt you've won much that is meaningful or helpful for the
language in the long run. I think Okrand missed a wonderful
opportunity here. But it is his choice, not mine.
> but I am
> saying that all you have is speculation, and I shall treat it as such: with
> respect, but I won't use it or promote it until there is more evidence to
> support it. In the meantime, I shall use and promote that which has been
> shown to be correct.
And I'll probably avoid the entire construction because its
cost in clarity is greater than its gain in expressive
potential.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98091.6
charghwI'